4 ms·

> The Pi foundation is betraying it's open source roots. No, it's not betraying it's open source roots. It has none. The Raspberry Pi has been a proprietary en

> The Pi foundation is betraying it's open source roots. No, it's not betraying it's open source roots. It has none. The Raspberry Pi has been a proprietary environment dressed up in open source clothing from the beginning. The Raspberry Pi has most of its processor silicon devoted to a chip that you are not allowed to touch -- the ARM6 core is really more of a coprocessor to the GPU, which comes with a big binary blob. OK, you say, forget the GPU, I'll just use the little ARM core. Nope! You can't boot the system at all without the blob. Then we've got their laughable attempt to pass off a shim that delegates function calls as an open-source driver. Or their support for software patents, with patent-restricted chip features that require separately purchased licences. The Pi foundation's roots are with Broadcom, a company known very well for its hostility to open source.

TheCraiggers 13y ago
I believe most of your complaints can be explained by their desire to create the cheapest device possible, but still powerful enough to be useful in an education setting. Corners had to be cut somewhere, and pure open hardware is expensive and hard to come by. If you want to drive the cost down, that typically means using popular silicon, which in turn typically means dealing with companies like Broadcom. Just because it's not 100% open source doesn't mean it has no roots there. I know this is hotly debated in many circles, but in my book it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Personally, I feel they made the right decision for their project. I'd rather introduce kids to linux, computing, and hacking on a device that is relatively open rather than on a purely open device that schools may not even be able to afford.
- hdevalence 13y ago
  Don't get me wrong, the Pi is a positive development, and I'm glad it exists. But I don't think that we should think of it as something with open source roots. Sure, you're never going to get a 100% open device at these costs. But something like the BeagleBone Black is in the same price range as the Pi but doesn't have all of these issues (i.e., the lack of openness is not just due to pragmatic cost reasons, but also "because Broadcom".)
- adestefan 13y ago
  The chip in the Pi was used because the guy that started the project works for Broadcom.
jwr 13y ago
As a comparison, the Beaglebone Black (http://beagleboard.org/products/beaglebone%20black http://beagleboard.org/products/beaglebone%20black) uses a TI chip, which is at least fully and properly documented. It is also better than the BCM chip at pretty much everything except high-resolution video decoding. The Raspberry Pi is a cool machine, but the "open source" hype about it is rather exaggerated.
- wmf 13y ago
  PowerVR isn't fully documented, is it?
mattkevan 13y ago
You're right, but for the wrong reasons. As far as I understand it, the Pi foundation doesn't have much in the way of open-source roots. Their aim wasn't to produce an ideologically pure device, but to create a dirt cheap but fully functional computer as an educational aid to teach kids to code. Open source software just happened to be a cost-effective way of achieving that goal. I think they were were so focused on the educational side that they didn't realise how interesting the device would be to hackers and hobbyists. Remember the problems launch where the demand hugely outstripped the initial manufacturing runs.

TheCraiggers 13y ago

I believe most of your complaints can be explained by their desire to create the cheapest device possible, but still powerful enough to be useful in an education setting. Corners had to be cut somewhere, and pure open hardware is expensive and hard to come by. If you want to drive the cost down, that typically means using popular silicon, which in turn typically means dealing with companies like Broadcom. Just because it's not 100% open source doesn't mean it has no roots there. I know this is hotly debated in many circles, but in my book it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Personally, I feel they made the right decision for their project. I'd rather introduce kids to linux, computing, and hacking on a device that is relatively open rather than on a purely open device that schools may not even be able to afford.

hdevalence 13y ago
Don't get me wrong, the Pi is a positive development, and I'm glad it exists. But I don't think that we should think of it as something with open source roots. Sure, you're never going to get a 100% open device at these costs. But something like the BeagleBone Black is in the same price range as the Pi but doesn't have all of these issues (i.e., the lack of openness is not just due to pragmatic cost reasons, but also "because Broadcom".)
adestefan 13y ago
The chip in the Pi was used because the guy that started the project works for Broadcom.

jwr 13y ago

As a comparison, the Beaglebone Black (http://beagleboard.org/products/beaglebone%20black http://beagleboard.org/products/beaglebone%20black) uses a TI chip, which is at least fully and properly documented. It is also better than the BCM chip at pretty much everything except high-resolution video decoding. The Raspberry Pi is a cool machine, but the "open source" hype about it is rather exaggerated.

wmf 13y ago
PowerVR isn't fully documented, is it?

mattkevan 13y ago

You're right, but for the wrong reasons. As far as I understand it, the Pi foundation doesn't have much in the way of open-source roots. Their aim wasn't to produce an ideologically pure device, but to create a dirt cheap but fully functional computer as an educational aid to teach kids to code. Open source software just happened to be a cost-effective way of achieving that goal. I think they were were so focused on the educational side that they didn't realise how interesting the device would be to hackers and hobbyists. Remember the problems launch where the demand hugely outstripped the initial manufacturing runs.