4 ms·

This has been reposted many times over the last ~10 years: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=vocore https://hn.algolia.com/?q=vocore While it's not useless, it's also

This has been reposted many times over the last ~10 years: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=vocore https://hn.algolia.com/?q=vocore While it's not useless, it's also so underpowered, you might as well stick to the ESP32 family. MIPS 24k is not great, even if you run the smallest linux distro ever. It's essentially WRT54G tech from 2002. As with all hardware like this, it's the ecosystem that makes or breaks it, not the product on its own. That said, it's survived this long so it must be a good fit for some people out there.

password4321 3y ago
Specifically https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31395379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31395379 1.5 years ago with 68 comments. > performance lower than a Pi 1
- Narishma 3y ago
  Physical size and power requirements are also lower than a Pi 1.
dragontamer 3y ago
Linux is still Linux though. Having the proper Linux full-sized TCP stack, however slow it is, is probably more robust in more corner-cases (and possibly has more features, like TCP_CORK, that could lead to better performance anyway). Honestly? I think a microcomputer of 1980s or 1990s level is still important for hobbyists. Rasp. Pi is taking the bulk of it but Rasp. Pi still uses too much power for a lot of tasks IMO. BeagleBone is good to play with in my experience (1/2 the power usage of Rasp. Pi, and more realtime features like PRUs or even Cortex M4 cores on the more recent ones). So that actually matches my use cases more. But finding even smaller chips that are proper full sized microprocessors, with a proper application environment / user-mode and applications is still intriguing to me. ---------- You're right. This is very similar to ESP32 on a specs perspective. But... "Proper Linux" is a huge difference and well worth the... what? $15 difference?
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  Think scales of magnitude. For a one-/few- off project, okay, you might not notice the difference of a hundred bucks. But if you do things at scale, every single penny counts. Yes, penny. And one thing about the embedded Linux aspect - yes, this is a path for Linux hackers to get into embedded, and perfectly valid. BUT. ESP32 also has many things going for it. Other operating systems, for example, equally fun and friendly to code for, as Linux. FreeRTOS is fun. So many other things, too .. endless great bits of community software components that can be picked and placed into your project, which will absolutely allow you to build a great product. The point is, if you can do Linux, you can do the ESP32 ecosystem too. They are approximately relevant to each other. Disclaimer: I have done multiple projects in both realms, for many, many years (minix-list) and am quite comfortable with the cyclomatic complexity of writing code for either Linux or ESP32. They are, to me, flat. YMMV.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    Hobbyists and even professionals are looking at 1000 SKUs to maybe 10,000 SKU projects. Knowing how to code and design at the 10,000 unit level is important. At this level, paying $3 per oscillator module for 2% higher reliability is more important than paying for a $0.50 XTAL and trying to save $2.50 per SKU. Because the bulk of the costs are development, and because you are likely building a reputation as an elite artisan selling highly custom goods for a niche audience. The $20,000 difference of a $2.50 module with slightly better reliability is absolutely the right choice to make.
    - helpfulContrib 3y ago
      Higher reliability? Sorry, that is a fallacy .. you're not paying for reliability at scale in either the ESP32 or Embedded Linux scales. You're paying for what functionality you can attain.. in the ESP32 case, its mighty limited - but as all embedded devs know, challenge accepted - and in the Linux case its mighty complex/hefty and you have to pay to play, in the BOM costs anyway .. Either way, the 'reliability' factor is misguided, in my opinion. This is not at all why you choose either path. Both platforms are functionally equivalent. The only difference is capacity.

password4321 3y ago

Specifically https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31395379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31395379 1.5 years ago with 68 comments. > performance lower than a Pi 1

Narishma 3y ago
Physical size and power requirements are also lower than a Pi 1.

dragontamer 3y ago

Linux is still Linux though. Having the proper Linux full-sized TCP stack, however slow it is, is probably more robust in more corner-cases (and possibly has more features, like TCP_CORK, that could lead to better performance anyway). Honestly? I think a microcomputer of 1980s or 1990s level is still important for hobbyists. Rasp. Pi is taking the bulk of it but Rasp. Pi still uses too much power for a lot of tasks IMO. BeagleBone is good to play with in my experience (1/2 the power usage of Rasp. Pi, and more realtime features like PRUs or even Cortex M4 cores on the more recent ones). So that actually matches my use cases more. But finding even smaller chips that are proper full sized microprocessors, with a proper application environment / user-mode and applications is still intriguing to me. ---------- You're right. This is very similar to ESP32 on a specs perspective. But... "Proper Linux" is a huge difference and well worth the... what? $15 difference?

helpfulContrib 3y ago
Think scales of magnitude. For a one-/few- off project, okay, you might not notice the difference of a hundred bucks. But if you do things at scale, every single penny counts. Yes, penny. And one thing about the embedded Linux aspect - yes, this is a path for Linux hackers to get into embedded, and perfectly valid. BUT. ESP32 also has many things going for it. Other operating systems, for example, equally fun and friendly to code for, as Linux. FreeRTOS is fun. So many other things, too .. endless great bits of community software components that can be picked and placed into your project, which will absolutely allow you to build a great product. The point is, if you can do Linux, you can do the ESP32 ecosystem too. They are approximately relevant to each other. Disclaimer: I have done multiple projects in both realms, for many, many years (minix-list) and am quite comfortable with the cyclomatic complexity of writing code for either Linux or ESP32. They are, to me, flat. YMMV.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Hobbyists and even professionals are looking at 1000 SKUs to maybe 10,000 SKU projects. Knowing how to code and design at the 10,000 unit level is important. At this level, paying $3 per oscillator module for 2% higher reliability is more important than paying for a $0.50 XTAL and trying to save $2.50 per SKU. Because the bulk of the costs are development, and because you are likely building a reputation as an elite artisan selling highly custom goods for a niche audience. The $20,000 difference of a $2.50 module with slightly better reliability is absolutely the right choice to make.
  - helpfulContrib 3y ago
    Higher reliability? Sorry, that is a fallacy .. you're not paying for reliability at scale in either the ESP32 or Embedded Linux scales. You're paying for what functionality you can attain.. in the ESP32 case, its mighty limited - but as all embedded devs know, challenge accepted - and in the Linux case its mighty complex/hefty and you have to pay to play, in the BOM costs anyway .. Either way, the 'reliability' factor is misguided, in my opinion. This is not at all why you choose either path. Both platforms are functionally equivalent. The only difference is capacity.