4 ms·

I don't think one can paint attempting to stop counterfeit cameras (which were aggressively counterfeited) as being aggressively closed hardware. Look Rpi have

I don't think one can paint attempting to stop counterfeit cameras (which were aggressively counterfeited) as being aggressively closed hardware. Look Rpi have a clear goal, to get kids coding. Everything, and I mean _everything_ they do is to further that goal. One part of that is to have a platform that is, safe, easy, expandable and _cheap_. A side effect of that is that its mostly open. Now, is it as open as say fabbing your own RISC-V SoC? no. But then that would cost a boat load of cash, and it would then be cloned and resold by third parties. Thus, no money for education. (worse still, dangerous counterfeits might be bought by schools, cause injury leading to legal action.) So, being pragmatic, and noting that the ecosystem is far more valuable to me, and almost everyone else, than the hardware, I will accept this behaviour.

neilv 7y ago
It's fine if that's their requirements, but that wasn't clear originally. It seems that people who care about technology open standards, open source, and open hardware need a clear understanding of Raspberry Pi requirements, and that they're actually getting hardware that is more closed than a typical PC. (Related: Starting over a decade ago, some IBM ThinkPad models infamously whitelisted mini-PCIe cards, so that only a small set of particular cards could be used, which was very unusual for PC hardware based on open standards. One of the biggest practical reasons to put Coreboot on those ThinkPads is to get rid of the awful whitelisting, so that people could use whatever cards they wanted, including using WiFi cards supporting later standards and working without having to download closed firmware blobs.)
- KaiserPro 7y ago
  It was always the requirement. It was designed as a machine to replace the BBC micro. most PCs have BIOS, which is closed source, and difficult to get access to. yes there are opensource alternatives, but they are not entirely practical. Most modern PCs have a TPM, EFI and a whole host of other bits that make opensource drivers exceedingly difficult. Then there is the graphics card, where if you want to actually have decent speed it means closed source drivers (I'm talking nVidia/ATI, intel doesn't really count as they are adding GPUs as a value add, not a core business.) Harddrives have closed source and obfuscated software that actually does the writing/reading. Then there is the out-of-band management that is shoehorned into a lot of Intel and AMD's kit. so, to say that it is more closed than a PC, is either ignorance or hyperbole. Also, you have to remember that yes, the PC was based around open standards, but not open source. You still had to pay to get certified, or even get access to the spec. Considering that you can attach any hardware either in the form of a HAT, or via the CSI, I think the argument is flawed. Again, there is nothing stopping people using a clone, if they so wish. But all the rpi clones appear to be mediocre at best.
  - hlandau 7y ago
    Although PCs have traditionally had closed-source firmware, this firmware has not typically been used to implement malicious functionality (aside from cases such as the Thinkpad example above), making it historically less of a concern (though this is changing). Vendor lockin doesn't magically become acceptable because kids (nor is it ethical to teach kids that DRM is okay/normal). Also, define rpi clone - rpi did not invent the SBC genre. Many more open products precede it. FYI, AMD graphics drivers are fully open now.
    - KaiserPro 7y ago
      > not typically been used to implement malicious functionality so raspberry pi, in an effort to be more open than say Dell/HP, where you had/have to pay to download drivers, bios and other updates, is _more_ malicious than say apple/google who are competing to create a closed garden with a remote lockout, where nothing is owned, only rented? ya. I really don't understand this viewpoint. Look, I've used embedded 386s. I've seen the evolution of ARM SBC first hand. I've used gumstix, sheevas and custom rolled jobbies. You know what united them all? they were bloody expensive and difficult to use. Pis are a joy to use. Plus if you accidentally blow the board, you're not down £500 Adding a DRM so that people can't make knock off cameras, in exchange for a £10 full linux SBC that is _easy_ is a worthy exchange. Even if they weren't a charity. The fact that they are single-handedly dragging the pathetic excuse for IT education in the UK ("here is how to use Microsoft office") into something approaching usefulness is a massive massive bonus. The ecosystem that raspberry pi supports, the OS, magazines, training, teaching, class room outreach and research can only be done with cold hard cash. That cash comes from Pi sales. Don't get me started on DRM. Look I know you think that everything should be free, but that means I can't earn a living. Teaching kids that copy/pasting someone's work, making a halfarsed cheap copy and selling it for loads of profit, with no support is a good moral choice, you might want to re-asses your world view. Yes open source is good. Yes you should give back and contribute. But, to move forward, money has to be invested, and it has to come from something. Yes, removing ownership from the people is exceptionally bad. The trend towards the "sharing" economy undermines workers rights to the point that we are entering digital feudalism. But that is another topic.

neilv 7y ago

It's fine if that's their requirements, but that wasn't clear originally. It seems that people who care about technology open standards, open source, and open hardware need a clear understanding of Raspberry Pi requirements, and that they're actually getting hardware that is more closed than a typical PC. (Related: Starting over a decade ago, some IBM ThinkPad models infamously whitelisted mini-PCIe cards, so that only a small set of particular cards could be used, which was very unusual for PC hardware based on open standards. One of the biggest practical reasons to put Coreboot on those ThinkPads is to get rid of the awful whitelisting, so that people could use whatever cards they wanted, including using WiFi cards supporting later standards and working without having to download closed firmware blobs.)

KaiserPro 7y ago
It was always the requirement. It was designed as a machine to replace the BBC micro. most PCs have BIOS, which is closed source, and difficult to get access to. yes there are opensource alternatives, but they are not entirely practical. Most modern PCs have a TPM, EFI and a whole host of other bits that make opensource drivers exceedingly difficult. Then there is the graphics card, where if you want to actually have decent speed it means closed source drivers (I'm talking nVidia/ATI, intel doesn't really count as they are adding GPUs as a value add, not a core business.) Harddrives have closed source and obfuscated software that actually does the writing/reading. Then there is the out-of-band management that is shoehorned into a lot of Intel and AMD's kit. so, to say that it is more closed than a PC, is either ignorance or hyperbole. Also, you have to remember that yes, the PC was based around open standards, but not open source. You still had to pay to get certified, or even get access to the spec. Considering that you can attach any hardware either in the form of a HAT, or via the CSI, I think the argument is flawed. Again, there is nothing stopping people using a clone, if they so wish. But all the rpi clones appear to be mediocre at best.
- hlandau 7y ago
  Although PCs have traditionally had closed-source firmware, this firmware has not typically been used to implement malicious functionality (aside from cases such as the Thinkpad example above), making it historically less of a concern (though this is changing). Vendor lockin doesn't magically become acceptable because kids (nor is it ethical to teach kids that DRM is okay/normal). Also, define rpi clone - rpi did not invent the SBC genre. Many more open products precede it. FYI, AMD graphics drivers are fully open now.
  - KaiserPro 7y ago
    > not typically been used to implement malicious functionality so raspberry pi, in an effort to be more open than say Dell/HP, where you had/have to pay to download drivers, bios and other updates, is _more_ malicious than say apple/google who are competing to create a closed garden with a remote lockout, where nothing is owned, only rented? ya. I really don't understand this viewpoint. Look, I've used embedded 386s. I've seen the evolution of ARM SBC first hand. I've used gumstix, sheevas and custom rolled jobbies. You know what united them all? they were bloody expensive and difficult to use. Pis are a joy to use. Plus if you accidentally blow the board, you're not down £500 Adding a DRM so that people can't make knock off cameras, in exchange for a £10 full linux SBC that is _easy_ is a worthy exchange. Even if they weren't a charity. The fact that they are single-handedly dragging the pathetic excuse for IT education in the UK ("here is how to use Microsoft office") into something approaching usefulness is a massive massive bonus. The ecosystem that raspberry pi supports, the OS, magazines, training, teaching, class room outreach and research can only be done with cold hard cash. That cash comes from Pi sales. Don't get me started on DRM. Look I know you think that everything should be free, but that means I can't earn a living. Teaching kids that copy/pasting someone's work, making a halfarsed cheap copy and selling it for loads of profit, with no support is a good moral choice, you might want to re-asses your world view. Yes open source is good. Yes you should give back and contribute. But, to move forward, money has to be invested, and it has to come from something. Yes, removing ownership from the people is exceptionally bad. The trend towards the "sharing" economy undermines workers rights to the point that we are entering digital feudalism. But that is another topic.