3 ms·

Reading through the EEPROM repo issue[1] makes me a little more sympathetic to the "feature", but I still don't like it at all. It might help in the short term

Reading through the EEPROM repo issue[1] makes me a little more sympathetic to the "feature", but I still don't like it at all. It might help in the short term to stop dodgy resellers who mod the boards with cheap upgraded RAM to make a buck or two... But the Pi itself is always taking one step forward, one step back in terms of firmware. I've been tinkering with some Qualcomm boards from Radxa and things are slightly better there, though you don't have anywhere near the ecosystem you get with Pi (or onboarding niceties). [1] https://github.com/raspberrypi/rpi-eeprom/issues/761 https://github.com/raspberrypi/rpi-eeprom/issues/761

bri3d 5d ago
Really? I found that issue and all of the related ones really disingenuous from the Pi folks; they just stonewalled everyone with "contact your hardware seller" rather than explaining what was going on even at the glossed-over level they managed in the forum thread. I do feel for them; they're between a rock and a hard place with mis-labeled clone boards. But their implementation seems to be the most hostile and opaque possible way to achieve these goals (which I also understand from an anti-cloning standpoint, but especially anymore, it's going to get reversed anyway).
- alibarber 5d ago
  I dunno - I think the victims in a lot of these cases aren't stupid. They can't contact the seller because they bought it from 'some guy' who's disappeared into the night. They know they've been had and are trying to get a knock-off board working at the expense of [the time of] someone completely unrelated to this. It's pretty normal for the first port of call / warranty claim for a busted item to be the dealer that sold it to you.
  - bri3d 5d ago
    I absolutely agree that engaging with these people beyond "we added checks to ensure your board has the RAM it came with, and this one failed" is a waste of time, but I think that at least providing that level of response would be much more aligned with the image they're still trying to project than just stonewalling entirely.
    - alibarber 5d ago
      Very fair point.
    - garaetjjte 5d ago
      "We bricked your board on purpose even though it actually might work fine" isn't good image either. Like, they know they are doing a bad thing!
      - undersuit 5d ago
        It's not bricked.
winkelmann 5d ago
I am incredibly unsympathetic to statements like the first reply to the issue "This sounds like a hardware issue. Please can you contact the reseller for a refund." from the "Software Engineering Manager at Raspberry Pi, working on firmware, bootloader, security and low-level Linux software." (Read: I suspect this person knew exactly what happened here) If the reply was along the lines of "This is a new firmware check to curb fraud related to undisclosed aftermarket RAM upgrades with potentially unreliable chips." - I'd be fine with it, but basically just coming out to gaslight the user about the issue leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. In the end, they had to come clean anyway, big surprise. I say this as someone who has been loving Pis despite their price for the straightforward and reliable long-term software support. Not gonna pretent like I'll never buy a Pi again, but it's another strike moving me to explore other options in the future.

bri3d 5d ago

Really? I found that issue and all of the related ones really disingenuous from the Pi folks; they just stonewalled everyone with "contact your hardware seller" rather than explaining what was going on even at the glossed-over level they managed in the forum thread. I do feel for them; they're between a rock and a hard place with mis-labeled clone boards. But their implementation seems to be the most hostile and opaque possible way to achieve these goals (which I also understand from an anti-cloning standpoint, but especially anymore, it's going to get reversed anyway).

alibarber 5d ago
I dunno - I think the victims in a lot of these cases aren't stupid. They can't contact the seller because they bought it from 'some guy' who's disappeared into the night. They know they've been had and are trying to get a knock-off board working at the expense of [the time of] someone completely unrelated to this. It's pretty normal for the first port of call / warranty claim for a busted item to be the dealer that sold it to you.
- bri3d 5d ago
  I absolutely agree that engaging with these people beyond "we added checks to ensure your board has the RAM it came with, and this one failed" is a waste of time, but I think that at least providing that level of response would be much more aligned with the image they're still trying to project than just stonewalling entirely.
  - alibarber 5d ago
    Very fair point.
  - garaetjjte 5d ago
    "We bricked your board on purpose even though it actually might work fine" isn't good image either. Like, they know they are doing a bad thing!
    - undersuit 5d ago
      It's not bricked.

winkelmann 5d ago

I am incredibly unsympathetic to statements like the first reply to the issue "This sounds like a hardware issue. Please can you contact the reseller for a refund." from the "Software Engineering Manager at Raspberry Pi, working on firmware, bootloader, security and low-level Linux software." (Read: I suspect this person knew exactly what happened here) If the reply was along the lines of "This is a new firmware check to curb fraud related to undisclosed aftermarket RAM upgrades with potentially unreliable chips." - I'd be fine with it, but basically just coming out to gaslight the user about the issue leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. In the end, they had to come clean anyway, big surprise. I say this as someone who has been loving Pis despite their price for the straightforward and reliable long-term software support. Not gonna pretent like I'll never buy a Pi again, but it's another strike moving me to explore other options in the future.