4 ms·

Although PCs have traditionally had closed-source firmware, this firmware has not typically been used to implement malicious functionality (aside from cases suc

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.
- hlandau 7y ago
  I don't own a smartphone/any Apple/Google products, or Dell/HP machines for that matter (not surprising to me that they're bad). My frame of reference is typical PCs, which aren't in the habit of applying vendor lockin with regards to what peripherals you can use - and other SBCs. I don't understand the premise that not applying vendor lockin to a camera module would make SBCs unreasonably expensive. Competing SBCs are more open, many predate the rpi and despite the fact that they probably sell fewer units than the rpi (due to less brand exposure, not cloning), and thus possess lower economies of scale, I've never seen one which costs "£500". >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. I think this is clearly untrue from the success of other, more open SBCs. >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. But I never claimed that kids should be taught that. What I do claim is that kids should not be taught that it's ethical or normal/acceptable to try and use malicious functionality to institute vendor lockin, creating an artificial monopoly in compatible peripherals, because it isn't. Moreover, it appears this DRM has had a chilling effect on third-party cameras with novel functionality (i.e., not competing for the same applications as the official camera), according to a comment posted above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20261787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20261787 So there's real evidence of harm done by this. >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. It isn't another topic. There is a systemic trend of hardware vendors using firmware to advance and prioritise their own interests over those of the device owner, essentially using technological measures to undermine the first sale doctrine. Of course, this isn't illegal, though it ought to be.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    > But I never claimed that kids should be taught that. What I do > claim is that kids should not be taught that it's ethical or > normal/acceptable to try and use malicious functionality to > institute vendor lockin, creating an artificial monopoly in > compatible peripherals, because it isn't. I'm sorry, I didn't buy a Raspberry Pi for my little brother in order to teach him about vendor lock-in. I bought him a Pi so that he'd learn Python and explore the boundary between the electronic, software world and the real physical one that so often seems shrouded in mystery. I did not buy the Pi because I like supporting non-open companies- I bought it because A) it has a great value proposition, especially once you factor in the community support, and B) I like the Raspberry Pi people. They have hearts. They care. I understand them DRM'ing a $10 part when it's not crucial to standard operation (nor a lot of projects) and it's not like you can't just get an old PC and stick a webcam on it. The way I see it, a Raspberry Pi is more than the sum of its parts- while commercial companies care about the chips and the complexity a solution like a Pi can remove, I personally bought a Pi for my brother to learn on.

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.

hlandau 7y ago
I don't own a smartphone/any Apple/Google products, or Dell/HP machines for that matter (not surprising to me that they're bad). My frame of reference is typical PCs, which aren't in the habit of applying vendor lockin with regards to what peripherals you can use - and other SBCs. I don't understand the premise that not applying vendor lockin to a camera module would make SBCs unreasonably expensive. Competing SBCs are more open, many predate the rpi and despite the fact that they probably sell fewer units than the rpi (due to less brand exposure, not cloning), and thus possess lower economies of scale, I've never seen one which costs "£500". >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. I think this is clearly untrue from the success of other, more open SBCs. >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. But I never claimed that kids should be taught that. What I do claim is that kids should not be taught that it's ethical or normal/acceptable to try and use malicious functionality to institute vendor lockin, creating an artificial monopoly in compatible peripherals, because it isn't. Moreover, it appears this DRM has had a chilling effect on third-party cameras with novel functionality (i.e., not competing for the same applications as the official camera), according to a comment posted above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20261787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20261787 So there's real evidence of harm done by this. >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. It isn't another topic. There is a systemic trend of hardware vendors using firmware to advance and prioritise their own interests over those of the device owner, essentially using technological measures to undermine the first sale doctrine. Of course, this isn't illegal, though it ought to be.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  > But I never claimed that kids should be taught that. What I do > claim is that kids should not be taught that it's ethical or > normal/acceptable to try and use malicious functionality to > institute vendor lockin, creating an artificial monopoly in > compatible peripherals, because it isn't. I'm sorry, I didn't buy a Raspberry Pi for my little brother in order to teach him about vendor lock-in. I bought him a Pi so that he'd learn Python and explore the boundary between the electronic, software world and the real physical one that so often seems shrouded in mystery. I did not buy the Pi because I like supporting non-open companies- I bought it because A) it has a great value proposition, especially once you factor in the community support, and B) I like the Raspberry Pi people. They have hearts. They care. I understand them DRM'ing a $10 part when it's not crucial to standard operation (nor a lot of projects) and it's not like you can't just get an old PC and stick a webcam on it. The way I see it, a Raspberry Pi is more than the sum of its parts- while commercial companies care about the chips and the complexity a solution like a Pi can remove, I personally bought a Pi for my brother to learn on.