5 ms·

Part of this is driven by necessity, for example, cellular network chips are typically binary blobs, etc. as mentioned, the heart rate sensor is a binary blob a

by fao_ 11mo ago

Part of this is driven by necessity, for example, cellular network chips are typically binary blobs, etc. as mentioned, the heart rate sensor is a binary blob and that's likely because there are no good OSS solutions for those components. A lot of battery firmwares are closed source, the way that they fixed this for the early pinephone was literally just staring at a memory listing and aiming a heat gun at the battery to see how it reacted when it went hot.

yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
Sure; I'm aware that embedded sucks. And to be clear, this is (IMHO) tolerable so long as the blobs are redistributable. But then maybe don't headline with "100% open source". It's better to be honest about it.
- jdiff 11mo ago
  I see that kind of thing more often labeled "open hardware" rather than open source.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
    That's a different thing. They're also doing at least some degree of open hardware: > We’ve also published electrical and mechanical design files for Pebble 2 Duo. Yes, you can download the schematic (includes KiCad project files) right now on Github! This should give you a nice jumpstart to designing your own PebbleOS-compatible device. But this is about the software/firmware running on it.
- fragmede 11mo ago
  Yeah, it's weird because they're the ones writing that headline, and the claim is that it's 100% open source. They didn't have to word it that way, they chose to.
- pseudosavant 11mo ago
  I see your point, but it feels more like the difference between 99% fat free and 100% fat free. Technically measurable, but irrelevant in practice when the alternatives are all basically closed source.
  - fwip 11mo ago
    To some people, it's more like "99% shellfish free." I personally don't mind that the cellular radio is closed-source, but I'm also not allergic to shellfish.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
    > I see your point, but it feels more like the difference between 99% fat free and 100% fat free. Then why not have the headline say "99% open source"? IMO, either it doesn't matter and you can just say that it's almost all FOSS, or it does matter and you really shouldn't be lying about it. > Technically measurable, but irrelevant in practice when the alternatives are all basically closed source. The alternatives are the pinetime, watchy, and bangle.js, which AFAIK are also ~95% FOSS. I guess Apple and Google also offer smart watches, but I'd argue that those are so different in terms of features that they're not really direct competitors.

by fao_ 11mo ago

yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago

Sure; I'm aware that embedded sucks. And to be clear, this is (IMHO) tolerable so long as the blobs are redistributable. But then maybe don't headline with "100% open source". It's better to be honest about it.

jdiff 11mo ago
I see that kind of thing more often labeled "open hardware" rather than open source.
- yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
  That's a different thing. They're also doing at least some degree of open hardware: > We’ve also published electrical and mechanical design files for Pebble 2 Duo. Yes, you can download the schematic (includes KiCad project files) right now on Github! This should give you a nice jumpstart to designing your own PebbleOS-compatible device. But this is about the software/firmware running on it.
fragmede 11mo ago
Yeah, it's weird because they're the ones writing that headline, and the claim is that it's 100% open source. They didn't have to word it that way, they chose to.
pseudosavant 11mo ago
I see your point, but it feels more like the difference between 99% fat free and 100% fat free. Technically measurable, but irrelevant in practice when the alternatives are all basically closed source.
- fwip 11mo ago
  To some people, it's more like "99% shellfish free." I personally don't mind that the cellular radio is closed-source, but I'm also not allergic to shellfish.
- yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
  > I see your point, but it feels more like the difference between 99% fat free and 100% fat free. Then why not have the headline say "99% open source"? IMO, either it doesn't matter and you can just say that it's almost all FOSS, or it does matter and you really shouldn't be lying about it. > Technically measurable, but irrelevant in practice when the alternatives are all basically closed source. The alternatives are the pinetime, watchy, and bangle.js, which AFAIK are also ~95% FOSS. I guess Apple and Google also offer smart watches, but I'd argue that those are so different in terms of features that they're not really direct competitors.